Eveready Carers

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider promoted a positive culture that placed people at the centre of the service. Staff were encouraged to prioritise people’s wellbeing in all aspects of their work. During supervisions and informal discussions, the registered manager reinforced the service’s core values, which focused on compassion, respect and person-centred care. Staff told us these values were well understood and guided the way they supported people each day.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager had limited prior leadership experience in adult social care but showed a clear understanding of the importance of oversight and accountability. They were not fully aware of all regulatory requirements, including when to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about certain incidents. This was also a concern noted in their previous inspection. The provider assured us they have begun to take their learning and development seriously and will sign up to support sessions organised by skills for care. Skills for care is the strategic workforce development and planning body for adult social care in England.

However, people told us the registered manager was approachable and maintained regular contact with people, relatives and staff. Staff told us they felt supported and could raise any concerns or suggestions at any time. The registered manager demonstrated a compassionate approach and was involved in the day-to-day running of the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and understood how to report issues within the service. They were aware of the whistleblowing policy and said they could speak directly with the registered manager if they had any worries about people’s safety or the quality of care.

The provider promoted an open culture where staff were encouraged to be honest and transparent. Staff said they felt listened to and that concerns raised were addressed promptly.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had recruitment and employment practices that supported equality and diversity. Staff told us they were treated fairly and given equal opportunities for training and development.

Staff said they felt valued and respected regardless of their background. The registered manager told us they aimed to build an inclusive team where staff were supported to share ideas and contribute to service improvement.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s governance systems were not robust. This meant that audits of care records failed to identify inaccuracies. The audits processes were not effective as the audits themselves were not reflective of the service. MAR audit failed to identify gaps in medicines administration records which could indicate people had not received their medicines as prescribed.

The provider’s monitoring of staff training failed to identify training that was overdue. This meant that the service could not be assured that staff were undertaking their duties in line with the provider policy and in line with safe practice.

Staff were not supervised in line with the provider’s policy. This meant that the service could not be assured that staff were fit for their role or were performing their role in line with policy and national guidelines.

The provider had governance systems in place, including a range of audits to monitor quality and safety. These included monthly audits for medicines management, safeguarding, infection control, and incidents and accidents. Leadership demonstrated a general understanding of their regulatory responsibilities but were not fully aware of specific requirements, such as when to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about incidents or safeguarding concerns. We noted that their lack of understanding and knowledge related to their duties and responsibilities in delivering a regulated activity was also a concern raised at their previous inspection. There had been no improvements from the last inspection. Although there had not been any recent need for such a notification, we could not be assured that sufficient improvement had been made to strengthen the registered manager’s knowledge and understanding of their role and accountability under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Supervisions were carried out, but not consistently. The provider’s policy stated that staff supervision should take place monthly; however, we only saw records for May, August and September. The registered manager told us that some sessions may have overlapped and that certain notes were handwritten rather than typed, but evidence of this was not provided. This meant it was not possible to confirm that supervisions were taking place in line with the provider’s policy.

While governance systems such as audits of medicines, care records and safeguarding were in place, they were not always effective in identifying shortfalls. For example, errors in care plans and gaps in Medicines Administration Record (MAR) charts were not picked up through the provider’s monitoring processes. Medicines audits had been completed monthly, but they appeared to rely on tick-box checks rather than robust review, as they failed to identify inconsistencies we later found during the inspection. This showed that governance systems were not yet consistently effective in detecting and acting on issues.

Training compliance was also not well monitored. Safeguarding training for some staff had expired in July 2025 and had not been identified or booked for renewal. A training matrix was not available during the inspection and was only shared after we had left the site. The version we received did not clearly evidence ongoing oversight or demonstrate that the provider regularly tracked training completion. This showed that the provider’s arrangements for monitoring staff competence and compliance were not sufficiently established.

Based on the evidence we reviewed, we could not be confident or assured that the provider’s current governance systems were robust. Several audits had produced false positives, stating that areas such as medicines and care plans were compliant when they were not compliant with the provider’s own policies and procedures. We raised these concerns with the provider, who responded positively, acknowledged the shortfalls and confirmed they would take immediate action to strengthen their systems and ensure improvements were made.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider had limited involvement with the wider community and external organisations. Collaboration was mainly limited to contact with people’s GPs and district nurses when required. Although opportunities for wider community engagement existed, these were not currently being explored.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Where shortfalls were identified during the inspection, such as gaps in staff training, care plan accuracy and medicines management, the provider responded positively and acknowledged the need for stronger governance. They told us they were reviewing their systems and exploring the introduction of electronic monitoring to improve oversight and accountability.